Friday, May 13, 2011

Multi-Layering & Other Manipulation Evidence in
Forged Obama Long Form BC PDF File put on
White House Servers. Click on Image for Details

When Will Congress and the FBI Investigate the Suspicious Circumstances Involved With Obama’s Alleged Long-Form Certificate of Live Birth?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

May 13, 2011

WND reports today that the Obama Certificate of Live Birth released on April 27, 2011 which appears on the White House web site( viewed here http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf ) has the Hawaii Department of Health State Registrar’s stamp which contains what appears to be a typographical error. The stamp, which was affixed on April 25, 2011, says “TXE RECORD.” But when viewing a different Hawaii long-form birth certificate with a stamp affixed on March 15, 2011, the same stamp shows “THE RECORD.” Read more: New 'birth certificate' anomalies inexplicable http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=298101#ixzz1MHHSmIr1 Why would a stamp affixed just about one and one-half months before not contain the same error? Does the Hawaii Health Department have two stamps? Why would the clerk’s office use a stamp with a typographical error on the birth certificate of the President of the United States, especially in the context of the on-going constitutional crisis regarding the question of whether such a document existed?

The same WND article also states that there is no visible raised seal on the Obama April 27, 2011 on-line image of his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. But NBC's Savannah Guthrie, who attended the White House release of the new long-form document, reported that she had the opportunity to view the document and that she “felt the raised seal.” View the video and transcript at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42779923/ns/politics-white_house/

So, how does Guthrie feel a raise seal on that document but a scan of allegedly that same document does not show any raised seal?

Is WND sure that there is no sign of any raised seal on the White House scan? Is there no computer expert in the land that can confirm the presence of any raised seal on the White House image? Is there such an expert who can tell us that if Guthrie was able to feel a raised seal, the seal should appear on a scan of that same document which now allegedly appears on the White House web site?

Assuming that Guthrie really did feel a raised seal and there really is no raised seal on the White House scanned image, what is going on?

Now we also find out that Guthrie took a picture of the Obama Certificate of Live Birth. Was she the only person who would have been allowed to take such a picture? If so, why just her? That picture allegedly shows that there is a seal on the Obama newly-released document. The photograph can be viewed at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/be-sealed/#comments. But why does Guthrie’s photo show a raised seal and the White House scan image of allegedly the same document does not?

In addition to the question of the typographical error and raised seal, we have seen so many other anomalies with the Obama scanned White House image related to layering, image pixel duplication, the Stanley Ann Dunham signature created in part by computer graphics rather than a pen, and kerning on what is supposed to be a scanned image of an underlying document completed with a typewriter in 1961. Apart from signatures created by computer graphics, a typewriter simply could not produce in 1961 kerning and duplicate letters or images which show up as pixel duplication on the computer scan.

Moreover and what is the smoking cannon of common sense, we have yet to see any confirmation from Kapi’olani Hospital of an Obama birth there or any other medical evidence confirming such a birth there.

Where is Congress and the FBI to complete a full investigation of this matter and report their findings to the American people who they are supposed to serve and protect? Such an investigation and report are desperately needed to put the matter of Obama’s place of birth finally to rest.

According to a new Gallup Poll reported by USA Today, only 47 percent of those surveyed say they think Obama was "definitely" born in the United States. And 8 percent say he "probably was." We saw the amount of doubters decrease after Obama’s recent release of his alleged long-form birth certificate. Why would Obama not welcome such an investigation which if he is telling the truth should reduce the number of doubters even more?

19
comments:

This is another rope-a-dope to keep us chasing our tails. Another crappy, low quality image in poor light that's been res'd down and exhibits what kind-of, sort-of looks like a stampy-thingy on it. Is this the best they can do? How about releasing the actual document to the FBI or Federal Elections Commission for forensic authentication instead of a sycophant reporter who salivates at the sound of Obama's name? If Obama handed Savannah Guthrie a handful of dog-mess (as Whoopie Goldberg calls it) her eyes would sparkle and she'd claim it was the greatest dog-mess she's ever held. Why would I trust her with the task of authenticating this document and double-checking that the seal was a real HDOH seal? The White House has already released what appears to be a fraudulent long form on the web so why wouldn't they let some doe-eyed 'reporter' handle a copy with a phony seal? Does anyone think she'll compare it to an actual HDOH seal? Yeah, I won't hold my breath for that.

Give me some time and I'll examine and process the photos, but it's going to be extremely difficult to determine anything from such low quality pics, especially since they've been conveniently down-res'd, shot in such poor light and have what constitutes a barely visible shadow of a seal.

Yes, there is a circular shape where the "seal" is supposed to be, but the image is so poor it could be a coffee ring for all we know. The easiest way to see the circular shape is to:1) Open the long form downloaded from the Whitehouse website in Photoshop2) Go to Image>Mode>CMYK to convert the document to a CMYK image3) Go to Image>Adjustments>Levels (or press Ctrl+L) to open the Levels palette4) In the Levels palette, for "Channel:" choose Magenta from the drop-down5) Under the "Input levels:" histogram, there will be three boxes. Place the following numbers in them from left to right: 240, .50, and 2556) Below the UKL Lee signature you'll see the top right of the circle.

As I stated before, this image is so crappy, lo-res and manipulated, there's no way to authenticate it without the original. There's no way to know if that seal is authentic when all you can see of it is a shadow. And there's no way to reconstruct detail once it's lost. All the processing in the world can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Sure, if we were on CSI, I could just ask the CIA lackey to 'enhance' and the magical box would spit out a hi-res rendering of what was there. But this is the real world where garbage in=garbage out. If Obama wants us to accept this as proof of his Hawaiian birth, he needs to submit the ORIGINAL to a certifying authority such as the FBI or FEC for forensic analysis. Otherwise, he's just playing games because he knows we'll bicker about a meaningless birth certificate while his non-NBCness fiddles and Rome burns.

I found the source of the photograph shown at ObamaConspiracy.org. Savannah Guthrie provided two pictures on April 27, 2011, the first being a close-up of an area not including the seal, and the second picture being the wider shot provided at ObamaConspiracy.org. She "tweeted" these pictures with brief comments:

But where is the legally admissible "chain of custody" proving that the document this woman held and felt and snapped a picture of is one of the very same two documents that the HI authorities gave to Obama's lawyer per those letters. A switcher-ooo could have been done easily upon arrival of the docs in the White House and under the direction of Obama's Forgery Czar, the one that gave their previous forged works to the Daily Kos and FactCheck.org.

Given Obama's propensity to have things forged and back date things like his draft registration, and to steal others SSNs, the document this person held in her hand could have been a fake and a local print out of the forged PDF image to which a weakly applied forged seal, barely visible forged seal was applied. The seal being so weak and almost invisible makes it harder to analyze and thus to prove the seal itself is a fake.

Given that the PDF file put on the White House servers was an obvious forgery and fake, and the June 2008 image of the COLB was a forgery, one can easily surmise that the paper version long forms circulated for the press to handle, photograph, and scan at the White House were also forgeries. This was a carefully orchestrated news event by the Grifter in Chief and his cronies. Again, there is no proof that what people handled at the White House event was one of the same document copies the HI officials gave to Obama's lawyer to be hand carried back to the White House. By not mailing them back, they avoid the mail fraud charge, etc., in the future.

The very obvious forged PDF file version on the White House servers says something is very amiss and wrong with these puported documents.

Its really not about the raised seal at this point. It is obvious that someone inside the State of Hawaii DOH compiled an "abstract" long form certificate. Without a complete investigation into the states documentation on this issue, we will probably never figure out exactly what the truth is.

Thank you for your service to our country in the military and in the eligibility issue.

Also, thank you for the reply. I wasn't commenting on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the picture or claims of the document in the picture. I was just providing the source for the picture, along with the other picture from Savannah Guthrie's Twitter account, since I thought that the source would be appreciated rather than having to rely on a link to ObamaConspiracy.org.

Whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not, or whether the long-form birth certificate is real or fake, I know that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. He is at best a naturalized citizen because of his alien father. You and Mr. Apuzzo know this, of course, so I'm preaching to the choir. :)

Dr. Conspiracy had the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate examined by an expert. Below is what the expert wrote. The word “Kenya” appears on the pre-printed part of the Lucas Smith Kenyan birth certificate, not on any part that was typed with a typewriter. In any event, you can see how critical the kerning issue is.

Also, the problem with Dr. Conspiracy’s kerning analysis of the Smith birth certificate is that the alleged kerning on the pre-printed form could have been done in 1961 at a professional printer but it cannot be done with a typewriter. Lucas Smith explains: "Offset Lithography became the most popular form of commercial printing in the 1950s. The birth certificate template, of form, was most likely created on an offset lithography printing press. . . and NOT a letterpress."

Dr. Conspiracy responds: "However, you fail to say how offset lithography explains the kerning of “ny” that is probably the central argument of the article. . . . Should you at any time wish explain the “ny” . . . feel free to drop by."

Here is what Dr. Conspiracy’s expert said about the Lucas Smith certificate:

“The nail in the coffin that this is a forgery comes from a type issue we take for granted these days. In the line at the top which reads, Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya…. The give away is the kerning of the letters n and y in the word Kenya. The y is nestled beneath the n and it is impossible to duplicate that on a Linotype or in handset. No ligatures exist for that combination in metal or in mold. I know this for fact. When digital computer fonts are designed, the metrics or mechanical way letters sit together are refined into what is called kerning pairs. Two letters that will look better when set is what type designers do for a living. The word Kenya has this kerning pair of the n and y. This can only be done on a computer. There are a few other instances of this kerning issue in the document as well.

One other thing to consider. What is the actual size of the document? You cannot use the PDF for extracting that info, because it has been distorted by copying many times and poor scanning. European paper sizes are much different than US paper sizes.I will examine this closer when I have a moment, but off the cuff, it’s a fake."

Then, Dr. Conspiracy adds his comments: "To illustrate the writers point, here are two images: the first showing 'ny' from the Smith certificate, and the second showing 'ny' from a book printed in 1942 I happened to have in my library. The descender on the 'y' actually tucks under the 'n' in the Smith certificate, but clearly not in the book example."

Note his expert called the kerning issue “the nail in the coffin.” You should see Dr. Conspiracy and his followers salivate at having what they erroneously believed was such a wonderful discovery about the Smith document. You can follow them along at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/typography-on-the-lucas-smith-kenyan-birth-certificate/ where you will also find the above quotes.

I wonder why Dr. Conspiracy did not have that same expert address the kerning issue raised about Obama’s alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth? After all, he is such an expert on typewriters, printers, and kerning but we do not hear a single word from his expert. Rather, Dr. Conspiracy writes some weak article about his personal view on kerning which can be read here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/cottage-industry/.

So what can we say about Dr. Conspiracy? He hires the big guns when he wants to debunk others on some issue (which he did not do with the Smith birth certificate). But when that same issue is used against him, we do not hear from that same expert but rather get Dr. Conspiracy's little kerning experiment explanation. Does that sound like some truth seeker to you?

New video release comparing of the obvious Kerning in the Obama alleged long from BC put on the White House servers on 27 April 2011 to the lack of same Kerning in the Nordyke long form BC, born within one day of each other and according to Obama, at the same hospital.

"Its really not about the raised seal at this point. It is obvious that someone inside the State of Hawaii DOH compiled an "abstract" long form certificate. Without a complete investigation into the states documentation on this issue, we will probably never figure out exactly what the truth is."

This is exactly my point.

SMOKING GUN or NOTHING, people.

Only a real find can bring this back into the limelight, unfortunately.

A key point for all readers here is that all should note is that this typography expert report that was posted at WND.com on 7 Jun 2011 analyzed the images of the xerox copies that were handed out to the reporters at the White House and then reprinted by them. Reporters like those with the AP, etc. Thus this expert has proved that the paper copy long form birth certificate which at least one reporter was allowed to hold and touch and feel (from which the White House said the xerox copies were made) was also clearly a forgery. Common sense and the KISS principle indicates that the forgery was created with computer software and the paper copies shown to the reporters in the White House were printed out from the PDF file and then some phony Hawaii seal was weakly applied. The seal is barely visible and I believe that was done intentionally so that analysts could not clearly and definitively see it. The seal is likely a a poor forgery too. So the 27 April 2011 released long form BC of Obama’s is a forgery when viewed as layers and objects in the downloaded PDF file version and also when viewed in a “flattened” version as a xerox copy of the forged Obama long form birth certificate as reprinted by the AP and major media and blogs. This showing that even in the flatten, printed state the Obama Long Form Birth Certificate is a forgery is the nail in the coffin proof. There is no way Obama can wiggle out of this if and when a serious and major investigation is launched by Congress, the FBI, and/or the major media. He owns this forgery lock, stock, and barrel. But when will there be an investigation? When will the major media and/or Congress get their heads out of the sand and face the music and remove the fraud from the White House? The Congress and controlling legal authorities had best get their act together and take action while we still have a constitution and country left to save. This is a matter of national security and the very survival of our constitutional republic and the rule of law is at stake.

Another expert speaks out on the April 27, 2011 internet image of the Obama alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. See http://thepoliticalsandbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/flat-scan.html and http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=314717. Gary Poyssick, an Adobe software expert, while not going as far as to declare the document a forgery, makes the following conclusions.

1. The image is assembled in layers which contain suspicious “Clipping Masks” which he says should not be found in a normal scan of a document.

2. The scanned birth certificate does not contain a background which would be consistent with scanning it. Scanners contain a white plastic that is glued to the underside of the cover of the scanner and which is placed upon the document that rest on the glass surface when the cover is closed. That white plastic background creates a certain image on the scanned document. The Obama birth certificate image does not contain any such image which one would expect to be there. Rather, it contains a background of security paper which paper would have to be placed underneath the actual scanned document as it rests on the scanner glass. The way all the images line up perfectly, it is virtually impossible for someone to line up two papers documents to such perfection so that such a perfectly aligned image is produced.

3. The resolution of the surrounding pattern is different than the ledger paper on the long-form birth certificate.

4. The image contains letters which could have been made with either a computer or a typewriter. The way some letters appear in the document shows that some of the letters were processed differently.

5. The birth certificate image shows evidence of kerning. Mr. Poyssick would like to see either another document without kerning or that the typewriter used to fill in the long-form birth certificate in 1961 actually had the capability to do kerning. He does state that old typewriter were not able to do kerning.

Mr. Poyssick is not willing to say that the Obama birth certificate image is a forgery. He does say that it is the product of “a document that was, in fact, merged from several originals.” Hence, he sure gives us enough information to doubt that it is authentic. Again, where is Congress and the FBI to do an appropriate investigation and to report to the American people their findings?

Be sure to read the new report by nationally recognized computer expert, Mara Zebest, entitled "Barack Obama: Long Form Birth Certificate." Ms. Zebest opines that the April 27, 2011 computer image of Obama's alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. She explains in full detail in her report how she reaches her conclusion. At the end of her report, she provides a brief resume on her credentials which are impressive.

The report may be read athttp://www.wnd.com/files/Obama_LFBC_Report_final_draft.pdf

Again, where is Congress and the FBI to lead an investigation on Obama's fraudulent activities. The evidence point to the inescapable conclusion that we have an impostor sitting in the Office of the President and Commander in Chief. A majority of the American people are demanding an investigation. Why does not Congress and the FBI assure the American people that they have checked out the allegations against Obama and report back to The People they are supposed to serve and protect?

Mr. Apuzzo erroneously says that I had an expert look at the Lucas Smith birth certificate. I didn't ask this person to look at the form and he is not "my expert" nor do I assert that the person is an expert in the first place.

When you wrote your article on your web site as to an "expert" concluding that there was kerning in the Lucas Smith Coast Province General Hospital birth certificte and therefore it was a forgery, who did you tell your readers this person was?

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.